2012 Lockout Discussion Thread

All of this is besides what my main sticking point is, and it can't really be argued:

Owners have changed there position, they have "gived"

Players have dragged there feet at every opportunity.

The rest IMO is besides the point.

I think the players who were in the last strike caved, they took rollbacks and a cap, I think they caved, the media thinks they caved, even you probably think they caved. the last CBA increasing average player saleris over time or not is irrelevant. Maybe they could have gone up more, i don't know. it's moot. The players felt like they got slapped in the face. The players who lived it tell the younger players what it was like, They say "watch out, they could do it again". So the Union says "nope never again".

So when bettman comes out swinging from day 1 this time and don't kid yourself, the innitial offer was a slap in the face, they get thier backs up and take some time to make a counter offer, a real strong, real "we are not gonna get taken again" kinda counter offer, suggesting the league take a real hard look at the financials, and fix the real problem which is the financial inequality in the league.blah blah blah.

Bettman "moves on some stuff" but throws a hard deadline on it..... "here's a frikin bone, take it by friday or i take it back" Why would the players respond? the initial salvo included from the owners was "Take our deal or we lock you out." These are not the conditions or attitudes that help build consensus.

The palyers as a unit have fostered , right or wrong, a belief that theygot rooked the last time. They have no recourse but to stay strong and stick to thier guns. The high priced expert they hired is telling them to stay strong.Why should they "cave" agin and go back and pick at few losy percent difference? they want the league fixed. The more Bettman throws deadlines and threats the less likley they are to move on thier postion.
it's related to fear and pride.

And here's the kicker. They are right. the problem isn't the player salaries, League revenues are thru the roof, it's the financial inequality of the teams. and that isn't going away.

Alas they will eventually meet somwhere in the middle with the most current form of the NHL's offer and we shall all be here again in 4 years.

And here's the kicker. They are right. the problem isn't the player salaries, League revenues are thru the roof, it's the financial inequality of the teams. and that isn't going away.

I'm sorry but you're wrong and right here
It is a problem due to player salaries and the through the roof revenues are mostly consisting of a very few high revenue teams (the inequality that you are right about).

But the break-even teams which is the bulk is baaaaaaaaarely making a profit. The NHL as a whole is making ~3% profit which means that really inequality isn't the only problem.

*numbers I got were from an independent study made on nhlnumbers.com so not fudging from owners or players*

I think the players who were in the last strike caved, they took rollbacks and a cap, I think they caved, the media thinks they caved, even you probably think they caved. the last CBA increasing average player saleris over time or not is irrelevant. Maybe they could have gone up more, i don't know. it's moot. The players felt like they got slapped in the face. The players who lived it tell the younger players what it was like, They say "watch out, they could do it again". So the Union says "nope never again".

So when bettman comes out swinging from day 1 this time and don't kid yourself, the innitial offer was a slap in the face, they get thier backs up and take some time to make a counter offer, a real strong, real "we are not gonna get taken again" kinda counter offer, suggesting the league take a real hard look at the financials, and fix the real problem which is the financial inequality in the league.blah blah blah.

Bettman "moves on some stuff" but throws a hard deadline on it..... "here's a frikin bone, take it by friday or i take it back" Why would the players respond? the initial salvo included from the owners was "Take our deal or we lock you out." These are not the conditions or attitudes that help build consensus.

The palyers as a unit have fostered , right or wrong, a belief that theygot rooked the last time. They have no recourse but to stay strong and stick to thier guns. The high priced expert they hired is telling them to stay strong.Why should they "cave" agin and go back and pick at few losy percent difference? they want the league fixed. The more Bettman throws deadlines and threats the less likley they are to move on thier postion.
it's related to fear and pride.

And here's the kicker. They are right. the problem isn't the player salaries, League revenues are thru the roof, it's the financial inequality of the teams. and that isn't going away.

Alas they will eventually meet somwhere in the middle with the most current form of the NHL's offer and we shall all be here again in 4 years.

Why is this term "caved" thrown around so much? People say the players were not unified last time...huh? We lost a year of hockey because they were unified.

My view is the players came to a "realization" that there was going to be a new framework (cap), and that they should negotiate the best deal they could so as to not lose anymore paychecks. Why does nobody point to the fact that the owners said to the players "we need a cap, go with us on this, and you will do very well". Hmmmm...kinda went that way - didn't it?

The very deal they supposedly "caved" on is one that they are fighting tooth and nail to preserve. The business owners feel they got the numbers wrong, and are paying too much - and want to change it this time around...pretty simple to me. Now the players can "cave", and we can have a season

Why is this term "caved" thrown around so much? People say the players were not unified last time...huh? We lost a year of hockey because they were unified.

My view is the players came to a "realization" that there was going to be a new framework (cap), and that they should negotiate the best deal they could so as to not lose anymore paychecks. Why does nobody point to the fact that the owners said to the players "we need a cap, go with us on this, and you will do very well". Hmmmm...kinda went that way - didn't it?

The very deal they supposedly "caved" on is one that they are fighting tooth and nail to preserve. The business owners feel they got the numbers wrong, and are paying too much - and want to change it this time around...pretty simple to me. Now the players can "cave", and we can have a season

Yea spot on TC

The players are fixated on the "moment" of the last CBA transaction When they took a rollback and accepted the cap. The only flaw with the logic is that as time passed the deal slanted heavily towards the players and a handful of owners at the top. The players lost the HARD FOUGHT battle but won the war

now it wasn't all bad the CBA created a solid base for competitive balance and hope for all fan bases but it also created large fiscal disparity between the players and have owners vs the many have not owners. Now here we sit.

Why is this term "caved" thrown around so much? People say the players were not unified last time...huh? We lost a year of hockey because they were unified.

My view is the players came to a "realization" that there was going to be a new framework (cap), and that they should negotiate the best deal they could so as to not lose anymore paychecks. Why does nobody point to the fact that the owners said to the players "we need a cap, go with us on this, and you will do very well". Hmmmm...kinda went that way - didn't it?

The very deal they supposedly "caved" on is one that they are fighting tooth and nail to preserve. The business owners feel they got the numbers wrong, and are paying too much - and want to change it this time around...pretty simple to me. Now the players can "cave", and we can have a season

exactly,

there's a few misconception/assumptions that I think through the whole thing for a loop for a lot of people.

league revenue- they focus on league revenue when its 4 teams holding up 26. that is not healthy (both sides can agree on this) but should be noted that obviously somethings bizarre (again, individual players getting paid more money in one season then 10+ owners make combined).

The original deal was anything close to reasonable- it wasn't. the league was in piss poor shape because of it. the Players "caved?". Caved and gave in because they had extraordinarily outlandish demands to begin with, demands that were not in line with other pro sports entiities? your damn rights they did, and even "caving" didn't bring it in close enough to be a "fair" deal, it's still, VERY EVIDENTLY a sweet heart deal for the players.

But they gave them those contracts!- again, yes the optics are bad, i will admit, but the treating of NHL teams as the exact same as the NHL as an entity on its own is ridiculous, these are not one in the same. the NHL provides a framework for franchises to compete in. the level of that competition determines how valuable the "framework" of the NHL is. To expect teams to do LESS then they're allowed to do within that framework is ridiculous - regardless of the optics.

the biggest issue currently is the players have rallied around the idea taht they got shafted last time. Did they? yes, but that's only because the owners were being shafted for the 20+ years before that. And time's shown that they didn't even really get shafted in the end!

we all agree more revenue sharing would be good, the problem is the Players haven't proposed any alternatives to their original proposal.

Arguing the ******** that they are, and not negotiating "on point of principle" is infuriating. The players have up and said "it's about principle". Really? That's how your going to win me over? Refusing to negotiate, knowing you have a sweet heart deal, Knowing what the inevitable result is, knowing where the middle ground is, but standing your ground on principle?

there's a few misconception/assumptions that I think through the whole thing for a loop for a lot of people.

league revenue- they focus on league revenue when its 4 teams holding up 26. that is not healthy (both sides can agree on this) but should be noted that obviously somethings bizarre (again, individual players getting paid more money in one season then 10+ owners make combined).

The original deal was anything close to reasonable- it wasn't. the league was in piss poor shape because of it. the Players "caved?". Caved and gave in because they had extraordinarily outlandish demands to begin with, demands that were not in line with other pro sports entiities? your damn rights they did, and even "caving" didn't bring it in close enough to be a "fair" deal, it's still, VERY EVIDENTLY a sweet heart deal for the players.

But they gave them those contracts!- again, yes the optics are bad, i will admit, but the treating of NHL teams as the exact same as the NHL as an entity on its own is ridiculous, these are not one in the same. the NHL provides a framework for franchises to compete in. the level of that competition determines how valuable the "framework" of the NHL is. To expect teams to do LESS then they're allowed to do within that framework is ridiculous - regardless of the optics.

the biggest issue currently is the players have rallied around the idea taht they got shafted last time. Did they? yes, but that's only because the owners were being shafted for the 20+ years before that. And time's shown that they didn't even really get shafted in the end!

we all agree more revenue sharing would be good, the problem is the Players haven't proposed any alternatives to their original proposal.

Arguing the ******** that they are, and not negotiating "on point of principle" is infuriating. The players have up and said "it's about principle". Really? That's how your going to win me over? Refusing to negotiate, knowing you have a sweet heart deal, Knowing what the inevitable result is, knowing where the middle ground is, but standing your ground on principle?

this is what drives me nuts.

Yes Caved. they took a 24% cut in thier contracts. Tell me you would be happy with your boss if he came and cut your pay by 24%. forceing you to give up money you were legaly entitled to. Imagine that for a second. you sign a contract legal and all with lawyers, and accountants, and witnesses, and agents, and managers all signing stuff and agreeing to stuff.... and suddenly the other party decides to just change the terms... and lock you out without pay till you have no choice but to acctept the deal. that is why i say caved.

A huge barometer on this for me is Danial Alfreddssson. in the last strike he voulintarily offered to take a paycut, before the NHLPA agreed, just because he realised he was making enough money and just wanted to play. This time he's standing with his union brothers. that to me speaks to the mentality of the players. it tells me that they feel like they are being fed a rough deal and are being asked to clean up the owners mess by taking it on the chin again.

you can say it wass a win for the players last time ,but at the end of the day the Owners got every single thing they asked for. And they promissed they had fixed the system. they shouted out words like economic stability and "sound foundation for the future"

Again I'm not saying the players are being bad in this lockout, i attribut anything between 25-45% of the blame depending on the particular issue being discussed.

But I think the owners wanted a lockout from day 1 of the negotiations. so i give them the lions share of the blame.

Also this notion of the owners being "shafted" for 25 years before that? are you aware of how the NHLPA came to be? what the situation was before CBA's existed?maybe you should read up on that. then you kight see what "shafted"means.

Again , i get it. the league has financial inequality, alot of teams lose money, however the deal the owners are throwing about won';t really fix that. which is what the NHLPA are saying

you all say the players haven't moved...but they infact have, they are agreeing to limits on future contract values and lengths(not specifics yet but they are discussiong it), but they will not accept rollbacks. And right now every legitimate news source I can find seems to indicate the NHL's offer still includes a rollback in one form or another. and the NHL knows that after the last contract that's a deal killer. so if you put out an offer you know, know will not be accepted, re you really negotiating?" or are you just spinning pr to look good in public while being a big jerk?

Yes Caved. they took a 24% cut in thier contracts. Tell me you would be happy with your boss if he came and cut your pay by 24%. forceing you to give up money you were legaly entitled to. Imagine that for a second. you sign a contract legal and all with lawyers, and accountants, and witnesses, and agents, and managers all signing stuff and agreeing to stuff.... and suddenly the other party decides to just change the terms... and lock you out without pay till you have no choice but to acctept the deal. that is why i say caved.

you can say it wass a win for the players last time ,but at the end of the day the Owners got every single thing they asked for. And they promissed they had fixed the system. they shouted out words like economic stability and "sound foundation for the future"

Neither proposal fixes the system, a combination will (which is you know how negotiations work). But the fact remains NHL has moved on core economic issues from original offer...PA has not still insisting they deserve more raises. Once the PA starts to move it'll be a different story, they have not.

But I think the owners wanted a lockout from day 1 of the negotiations. so i give them the lions share of the blame.

If you think Day 1 was September 15th, you may well have a point. But the NHL tried to start discussions on negotiations during the 2011-12 regular season. More than once. They submitted a proposal (an absurd one) to the NHLPA and the NHLPA sat on it for a month.

I'll give the owners the lions share of the blame for the lockout only because they instituted it. But the notion that the players didn't play a role in driving it to that direction is just plain silly. They did it because it makes the NHL the bad guys, if only according to their public statements. The league locked us out, we'd still be playing and would have negotiated during the season they say. Riiiiiiight, why didn't they negotiate last year again? And the NHLPA proposal included playing a "bonus' year at the 57% level while they negotiated? Great rates if you can get 'em.

Again, both sides are idiots and if I wasn't a season ticket holder in a market where hockey just came back after a long absence I probably would have dumped my seasons (or if I thought realistically I could get them back once my temper tantrum was over). It's ironic but I think the ownership group probably least in favor of a lockout is the one that has the least to worry about with respect to the impact on the fan base (ok, maybe Toronto/Montreal).

Yes Caved. they took a 24% cut in thier contracts. Tell me you would be happy with your boss if he came and cut your pay by 24%. forceing you to give up money you were legaly entitled to.

The players proposed a rollback. I would argue for that year that they took a 124% cut

Quote:

you can say it wass a win for the players last time ,but at the end of the day the Owners got every single thing they asked for. And they promissed they had fixed the system. they shouted out words like economic stability and "sound foundation for the future"

Owners did not get every single thing they wanted - but it makes it sound better. Some of the owners were "pissed" about the percentages and the floor.

Quote:

Again I'm not saying the players are being bad in this lockout, i attribut anything between 25-45% of the blame depending on the particular issue being discussed.

Sorry Ski, not sure how you can ascertain % of blame - but interesting

Quote:

But I think the owners wanted a lockout from day 1 of the negotiations. so i give them the lions share of the blame.

Not sure they wanted a lockout, but they did tell the players long, long ago that they were coming back for a lower % - and that they would lock out with no deal. Cant argue that a lockout was on the table from a long time ago.

Quote:

Again , i get it. the league has financial inequality, alot of teams lose money, however the deal the owners are throwing about won';t really fix that. which is what the NHLPA are saying

Ahhh...herein lies the real issue. For some reason the players think that this is a negotiation about having them "fix" the business. That fight was last time - and, there is a cap in place. Now, the business wants to pay less...I don't think that the owners in the NFL, NBA or NHL are asking the players to come with proposals to fix their business...they are telling them they are going to pay less right now. My bet is that if the players walked into a room and said we understand you are going to pay less going forward - we say no rollbacks now - they are walking out in very short order with a deal (I could be 100% wrong, but it is fun to pretend I know what I am talking about!)...love the debate.

I know last time around the lockout was solved by an arbitrater or a mediater....ooc, why don't they just do that and at least try and save the season instead of having these pointless negotiating sessions that don't seem to be working.

Granted the league has moved in its position...but the PA hasn't at all.

I thought an arbitar was only briefly involved in the last round of negotiations...

In regards to the other stuff, the posts above pretty much beat me to my rebuttal.

The idea that the owners "got everything they wanted" is a complete fallacy. Men who have made as much money as the owners have (and are smart enough to use shell corporations and off shore bank accounts) probably could see the potential issues of having the floor set at a hard dollar value below the cap- I don't think that just snuck by them. I don't think the percent figure was their ideal situation either.

the idea that the owner locked out the players is "technically" correct, but the owners made it blatantly obvious they would not play under the old agreement for another season as early as June.

How anyone can buy the PA's "it's the owners fault, we said we'd play" is beyond me. Why give the players ALL of the leverage, as that's essentially what they would have been doing? It's stupid. Really stupid. There's no other way to describe it then that.

It's akin to the owners saying, "well, you should just sign this new proposal at 43% for this year while we work out the details for a longer one". You'd have to be an idiot to take that deal. It's a bad deal, it's a very bad deal, one that the owners had made painfully obvious they wouldn't accept three months prior to the start, yet once again, the PA doesn't move on it stance, but still points the finger.

My big issue still comes back to the PA and how through this entire ordeal they've spent far more time posturing, playing to public interest, and trying to curry support instead of, you know, negotiating.

I thought an arbitar was only briefly involved in the last round of negotiations...

In regards to the other stuff, the posts above pretty much beat me to my rebuttal.

The idea that the owners "got everything they wanted" is a complete fallacy. Men who have made as much money as the owners have (and are smart enough to use shell corporations and off shore bank accounts) probably could see the potential issues of having the floor set at a hard dollar value below the cap- I don't think that just snuck by them. I don't think the percent figure was their ideal situation either.

the idea that the owner locked out the players is "technically" correct, but the owners made it blatantly obvious they would not play under the old agreement for another season as early as June.

How anyone can buy the PA's "it's the owners fault, we said we'd play" is beyond me. Why give the players ALL of the leverage, as that's essentially what they would have been doing? It's stupid. Really stupid. There's no other way to describe it then that.

It's akin to the owners saying, "well, you should just sign this new proposal at 43% for this year while we work out the details for a longer one". You'd have to be an idiot to take that deal. It's a bad deal, it's a very bad deal, one that the owners had made painfully obvious they wouldn't accept three months prior to the start, yet once again, the PA doesn't move on it stance, but still points the finger.

My big issue still comes back to the PA and how through this entire ordeal they've spent far more time posturing, playing to public interest, and trying to curry support instead of, you know, negotiating.

I totally agree.

I don't see how it'd the owners fault that NHLPA didn't make their new CBA a priority snc a risky do something about instead of waiting to the 11th hour to do a damn thing. Donald Fehr was hired two years ago...and your going to try and tell me that he couldn't if not shouldn't have become familiar with all things hockey before it came down to the friggen wire like this.

Players knew damn well what they were doing, in regards to forcing the owners hand. They gained public opinion of the ignorant...and that's most hockey fans.

Of course they'll play while an agreement is being hammered out, but that's not an option. This was something that should have happened last season.

Especially when the players have had this hard on for alternate view as opposed to actual negotiating a contract. Don't get me wrong I get their position...but they should have started this crap last year. So then they could play while an agreement was being hammered out.

Revenue sharing is all well and good...but did any of them seriously believe that the owners were going to buy into this new system of theirs in the minimal amount of time that was given?

This is one of the things that really pisses me off about the players. They want to basically hold out for a better deal, fine. Don't take jobs away from guys who will NEVER play in the NHL and in some cases just make enough during the year to support their family. It's a totally ****** move IMO.

Millionaires signing in the ECHL just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Then to make matters worse the hundred plus guys who will never see the inside of an NHL dressing room again if this thing drags on for any length of time. Where are your PA brothers now, guys?

This is one of the things that really pisses me off about the players. They want to basically hold out for a better deal, fine. Don't take jobs away from guys who will NEVER play in the NHL and in some cases just make enough during the year to support their family. It's a totally ****** move IMO.

Millionaires signing in the ECHL just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Then to make matters worse the hundred plus guys who will never see the inside of an NHL dressing room again if this thing drags on for any length of time. Where are your PA brothers now, guys?

There is a lot of greed and its frankly disgusting to me.

Very good point. Going on strike while the upper supper chekkn just gets a job somewhere else doesn't sound like any union in the real world.

Its also what I find funny as most nhlpa reps (ie the guys we here from) are the lower end of talent.

This is one of the things that really pisses me off about the players. They want to basically hold out for a better deal, fine. Don't take jobs away from guys who will NEVER play in the NHL and in some cases just make enough during the year to support their family. It's a totally ****** move IMO.

Millionaires signing in the ECHL just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Then to make matters worse the hundred plus guys who will never see the inside of an NHL dressing room again if this thing drags on for any length of time. Where are your PA brothers now, guys?

This is one of the things that really pisses me off about the players. They want to basically hold out for a better deal, fine. Don't take jobs away from guys who will NEVER play in the NHL and in some cases just make enough during the year to support their family. It's a totally ****** move IMO.

Millionaires signing in the ECHL just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Then to make matters worse the hundred plus guys who will never see the inside of an NHL dressing room again if this thing drags on for any length of time. Where are your PA brothers now, guys?

There is a lot of greed and its frankly disgusting to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCP Guy

Yup. Same for me. It's the Winnipeg Jets as our city's team, and True North for me. The players are just cattle.

mer·ce·nar·y
adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.

Replace "foreign army" with sports team, and you have your modern professional athlete.